A final paper on social media and ethical theory for an Honors Ethics course.
With the rise of social media and its presumed anonymity, we as users and members of society have become more readily accepting of abuse, hate, and “canceling” from ourselves and our peers. The behavior we witness online affects us in ways other information does not, depending on individual factors we focus on, or the ones we avoid. It is an undeniable observation that modern society is saturated in online activity– so much so that many situations are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to navigate without it. Social lives, political agendas, research studies, and education have been developed to fit the growing presence of online communication tools. However, while there is certainly an argument to be made regarding the benefits online tools have granted to advancements in accessibility and communication, there is something still to be said about the personality removal that social media encourages. In a world of click-bait and snap judgments, everyone is looking to put their best self forward, even if that self is a misrepresentation. This motivation fosters a “likeability” pageant amongst online users, to such an extreme degree that much of the wariness surrounding online communication is centered around misrepresentation, grooming, and “catfishing.” To observe this behavior critically, it is integral to investigate the moral topics present in these online spaces, utilizing the information we have constructed over years past to apply knowledge to current world issues. Three such moral topics are presented in Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah, Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk by Brandon Warmke and Justin Tosi, and Epistemic Injustice: Power & The Ethics of Knowing by Miranda Fricker. With the use of books like these, experiences that permeate our daily life can be elaborated on with studies of the past.
What do we observe, really? Our realms of access in the past decade have grown wider and wider, as each individual account, profile, message board, and video exposes us to new perspectives and opinions regarding the information we seek out and generally consume. Due to the massive quantity of online communication, moderation is limited in many areas, mostly in large apps such as Instagram or TikTok, where algorithms flourish from conflict. In an article for PBS, Katherine J. Wu stated that “[Algorithms] certainly don’t have a conscience that tells them when they’ve gone too far. Their top priority is that of their parent companies: to showcase the most engaging content—even if that content happens to be disturbing, wrathful, or factually incorrect.” In this way, it isn’t hard to imagine what the modern online experience provides, even if an individual is less engaged in social media than most. Social media exposes us to people, but more so to the personas they have created for an online space. People who are seeking the “influencer” lifestyle are thus forced to make controversial, upsetting, or promotional content in order to stay ahead of the millions of fellow users on their platform of choice. While anonymous accounts and forums do exist on the internet, there is a sense of anonymity present in even the most social circles. If someone wants to limit knowledge of their identity, they have every ability to do so, in ways as simple as only disclosing the information that makes them look favorable to an online audience. While there isn’t anything inherently harmful in this action, there is an underlying sense of impersonality, a feeling that viewers are lacking the full picture.
There is a difference between the roles we play online and the ones we exemplify in day-to-day life, and much of this separation is created by the existence of an “audience.” Kwame Anthony Appiah’s book Cosmopolitanism elaborates on the intrinsic value of individual perspectives and ideas, and the respect that we owe to each member of the cosmic society we have fostered. Appiah’s theories can be applied interestingly to the abundance of hate and controversy witnessed online, in the context that our perception of people’s humanity varies in the online space. Every person in a comment section isn’t going to get the same respect we’d show a stranger on the street because they are just words from a username to us. That isn’t to say meaningful relationships can’t be founded online, but there is certainly a different starting point than many in-person relationships. There are details you notice about a person face-to-face that you do not have access to online, typically details that they see as negative. Many of the most relatable things in modern culture are seen as negative, such as acne, irregular speech patterns, body fat, and more, but the online space is a place less representative of these “flaws,” since members have the opportunity to hide them. These repeated facades can prevent us from seeing individuals online as “real people,” due to their lack of relatability or general possession of imperfections. Cosmopolitanism as a concept is lacking in online spaces– there is a clear absence of respect and understanding in online spaces, and this is often due to the existence of cultural echo chambers created by the aforementioned social media algorithms.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines an echo chamber as “an enclosed space where sound reverberates,” or “an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.” Both definitions paint a vivid picture of a space separate from other input or thought, though the latter provides a definition reflective of online echo chambers. Since algorithms on social media platforms are often intended to group people of similar interests together, echo chambers are formed, spaces that reinforce ideas regardless of their validity. Companies thrive off of the use of their platforms, and it is not to their detriment to provide spaces for intense conversation, even if those conversations result in immoral or discriminatory conclusions. When people make connections online, their social life very well may be fulfilled, but they also suffer from the guidance of algorithms that foster polarization as a byproduct of their very existence. Within echo chambers, it is very easy to create “in” and “out” groups, parties that limit the humanity of the “other” in their very perception of their existence. Cosmopolitanism is desperately needed in these communities, spaces that seek out the comfort of echo chambers at the expense of those they see as “other.”
The age-old phrase “you are what you eat” has been attributed to behaviors surrounding media, and when it comes to online activity, it is often difficult to disagree with. We often become more and more similar to what we surround ourselves with, and when it comes to internet communities, the phrase rings a bit too true in many scenarios. While one may intentionally choose echo chambers in order to reinforce their own ideas, it is certainly not uncommon for individuals, especially younger ones, to stumble upon groups with intense ideologies or beliefs, and stay due to a sense of community or intrigue. It is within more intense communities that grandstanding can be observed, at least by Tosi and Warmke’s definition. In their book, these writers elaborate on five situations of grandstanding, all of which can be observed in many online spaces dedicated to ideals and beliefs, specifically when it comes to political or spiritual groups. Their first two examples, “piling on” and “ramping up,” are undeniable within online communities, and they’re possibly the most common to occur in these echo chamber groups. A sense of belonging is gained once an individual finds “their group,” a place with ideals they share and people they support, so they are able to make a conscious effort to seem like a person in the “in group,” in a circle so rejecting of the people “outside.” Once an opportunity is gained, it isn’t difficult to pitch in with your own statements of agreement and even contribute your own information to keep the ball rolling, as it were. However, this group mentality often produces more harm than good, for many reasons.
The rise of the term “cancel culture” has done interesting things for the internet, but the most important of these events has been the continuing of its very issue. Cancel culture is the situation where a public figure is put under fire in an attempt to “cancel” them, to drive them off the internet. The situation is often fast and short-lived, and is frequently rampant with grandstanders attempting to look moral in their “exposure” of this online personality, whether their accusations are grounded or not. A recent example of this type of piling on is present in the attempted cancellation of the YouTuber and musician known as Kwite. The creator kept an anonymous persona online, not revealing his face or much about him, but a former friend of his posted a TwitLonger accusing him of sexual assault. The internet quickly rallied against this creator, calling him a rapist and sending derogatory statements and assumptions about him to the top of Twitter’s trending page, all without hearing a word from him. Kwite released a brutally honest video entitled “For The Record,” which stayed true to him as a personality while also elaborating on the many claims his former friend had made about him. In essence, the video disproved every claim, and the internet was quickly back on his side, now rallying against the accuser. It is this type of mentality that makes cancel culture so dangerous. Many online personalities have to deal with constant attempts to “cancel” them, due to the five seconds of fame the accuser gets. This behavior, despite being incredibly harmful and potentially life-ruining, is encouraged by the online communities it takes place in, and no harm is seen by the grandstanders once a situation has “resolved” itself. Canceling becomes a morality contest, a desperate attempt to appear better than those outside of your accusatory group, because you’re the one “doing the right thing.”
It is not difficult to understand how morality pageants become a case study for understanding people’s desperation for attention, but it is imperative to understand the other factors at play. In the situation with Kwite specifically, though it is certainly not absent in similar cases, grandstanders are piling onto him as a villain due to the increased social sensitivity to topics such as sexual assault and the MeToo movement. While this sensitivity is incredibly warranted, the extremes it is being taken to in this scenario are threatening and harmful. Miranda Fricker covers this topic in her book regarding epistemic injustice, elaborating on testimonial and hermeneutical injustice within social systems. With the mentioned cancel culture example, people are using the past testimonies of women suppressed by a society that disregarded sexual assault to justify injustice toward the victim of baseless accusations, an example of past hermeneutical injustice affecting current events. In many situations like this, however, if the victim does not handle their situation with as much care as Kwite, they may end up branded with the mark of a dangerous individual, and the effects of others’ grandstanding will have played a role in testimonial epistemic injustice waged against them.
Who we listen to online is largely dictated by our initial assumptions, based on prejudice and stereotypes. This is the core focus of Fricker’s definition of testimonial injustice, but with the rise of long-term internet inhabitants, an interesting problem emerges. Every one of us has made mistakes, said things we regretted, and grown out of things we knew were wrong. If people are starting their lives online at ages as young as thirteen, they are bound to make mistakes. Those missteps don’t go away, however, and that person can be forever impacted by a time they were not allowed to grow from their mistakes. It isn’t uncommon to form judgments based on someone’s previous actions, but there is a strange superiority in believing we are any better than some kid online who happened to have their embarrassing moments documented in a way ours weren’t. Especially in households that hold more polarizing beliefs, different things are normalized. Typically the teasing or teaching that comes from mistakes made as young people is helpful to a person’s growth, as they learn what is right and wrong. If that sort of material is kept relevant in their lives, they don’t have a chance to grow separate from it, as many people outside of earlier internet communication did.
What can be done? Modern social networking holds a bleak reflection to the credit of users’ moral compasses, and it seems we have strayed further and further from meaningful online communication. I have observed that, in many cases, the solution to moral conflict online seems to be separation. While it may be devastating to see a case like Kwite’s, where a seemingly outrageous crime has been committed, it isn’t difficult to note that the grandstanders calling for the destruction of one party have no problems with “cyberbullying” anyone in their way. But, the less you give to these people, the less you contribute to hashtags and algorithms and debates, the less you are contributing to the use of negative moral talk. These people online who create personas of flawless character, people who fight for what makes them look better to others, people who pile on to movements in order to be perceived as morally good– their worst enemy is silence. The most aid one can give to the decline of morality pageants online is achieved by simply not contributing to anything. Learning about these issues is important, but learning how to avoid them is more so. While it’s a tired statement, the problems raised in forums, fan communities, and comment sections aren’t central to life. Go outside, for lack of a better term. There are much more worthy causes to fight.
Works Cited:
@Nyasputiin, "Orion". “I Refuse to Be Silent Any Longer.” TwitLonger, 22 Feb. 2023, https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1ss8d2d.
Appiah, Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. TPB, 2010.
Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Richman, Olivia. “Kwite Reveals Face in Video Addressing Sexual Assault Allegations.” WIN.gg, 14 Mar. 2023, https://win.gg/news/kwite-reveals-face-in-video-addressing-sexual-assault-allegations/.
Tosi, Justin, and Brandon Warmke. Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Wu, Katherine J. “Radical Ideas Spread through Social Media. Are the Algorithms to Blame?” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 28 Mar. 2019, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/radical-ideas-social-media-algorithms/.
No comments:
Post a Comment